Yes, there are two Americas’ Virginia, they exist as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist. One tolerant and broadminded, the other intolerant and narrow-minded!
Sincerely, thinkingblue, from the TOLERANT AND BROADMINDED USA
PS: Joe (You Lie) Wilson, et al reside in the other America!

Friday, May 04, 2007

Edwards Uses First Media Buy To Urge Congress To Stand Firm Against President Bush On IraqWith one swift movement of a pen, George W. Bush sentenced hundreds, maybe even thousands of our young troops to death or physical torture for the rest of their sad lives. Would he have moved so belligerently and without any compassion WHATSOEVER, if he had, had any skin in this game of war he enjoys playing? For instance, one or both of his daughters or even something as insubstantial as losing his entire fortune (ONE SKIN, HE COULD NEVER STAND TO LOSE!)

I doubt it!!!

He takes pleasure in having so much power because he does not have to suffer any consequences. My God, I must tell you, I do not feel like I am living in a free society, except for the fact that I can voice my disgust for this man, we call Commander-In-Chief, without fear of reprisal. (An autonomy, Bush and his merry band of neocons, would sure as hell, take away if they could.)

Bush desires to keep this loathsome war of his in a perpetual state of limbo, with each step forward begetting 2 steps backward in the hope that he can dump it onto someone else's lap come, 2009.

IMPEACH BUSH AND CHENEY NOW! His EGO should not be allowed one more day of protection. We should not be enablers to his madness. We should not empower his lack of grief which discharges so much anguish and pain to so many. Not one more day! NOT ONE MORE DAY! Please sign the petition CONGRESS MUST STAND FIRM. Thank you, thinkingblue

Huffington Post Wires Dems Challenge Bush With Iraq TimetableANNE FLAHERTY AP March 23, 2007 11:03 PM ESTWASHINGTON— The House voted Friday for the first time to clamp a cutoff deadline on the Iraq war, agreeing by a thin margin to pull combat troops out by next year and pushing the new Democratic-led Congress ever closer to a showdown with President Bush.

The 218-212 vote, mostly along party lines, was a hard-fought victory for Democrats, who faced divisions within their own ranks on the rancorous issue. Passage marked their most brazen challenge yet to Bush on a war that has killed more than 3,200 troops and lost favor with the American public.

He dismissed their action as "political theater" and said he would veto the bill if it reached his desk. The Senate is about to take up its own version.

The $124 billion House legislation would pay for wars in Iraq and Afghanistanthis year but would require that combat troops come home from Iraq beforeSeptember 2008 _ or earlier if the Iraqi government did not meet certainrequirements. Democrats said it was time to heed the mandate of their electionsweep last November, which gave them control of Congress.

"The American people have lost faith in the president's conduct of this war," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "The American people see the reality of the war, the president does not."

Just over an hour following the vote, Bush angrily accused Democrats of playingpolitics and renewed his promise to veto the spending legislation if it includedtheir withdrawal timetable, despite administration claims that the money isneeded next month by troops.

"These Democrats believe that the longer they can delay funding for our troops,the more likely they are to force me to accept restrictions on our commanders,an artificial timetable for withdrawal and their pet spending projects. This isnot going to happen," he said.

Congress so far has provided more than $500 billion for the wars in Iraq andAfghanistan, including about $350 billion for Iraq alone, according to theCongressional Research Service.

Across the Capitol, the Senate planned to begin debate Monday on its own warspending bill, which also calls for a troop withdrawal _ and also has drawn aBush veto threat.

The Senate's $122 billion measure would require that Bush begin bringing home anunspecified number of troops within four months with a non-binding goal ofgetting all combat troops out by March 31, 2008.

These bills "offer a responsible strategy that reflects what the American peopleasked for in November _ redeploying our troops out of Iraq and refocusing ourresources to more effectively fight the war on terror," said Senate MajorityLeader Harry Reid, D-Nev.

While Friday's House vote represented the Democrats' latest intensifying ofpolitical pressure on Bush, they still face long odds of ultimately forcing himto sign such legislation.

In the Senate, Democratic leaders will need 60 votes to prevail _ a tall orderbecause that would mean persuading about a dozen Republicans to join them.

And should lawmakers send Bush a measure he rejects, both chambers would needtwo-thirds majorities to override his veto _ margins that neither seems likelyto muster.

Voting for the House bill were 216 Democrats and two Republicans _ WayneGilchrest of Maryland and Walter Jones of North Carolina. Of the 212 members whoopposed it, 198 were Republicans and 14 were Democrats.

Those opposing Democrats included seven of the party's more conservativemembers, including Georgia Rep. Jim Marshall, Tennessee Rep. Lincoln Davis andMississippi Rep. Gene Taylor, who say they do not want to tie the hands ofmilitary commanders.

The other seven dissenters were members of a liberal anti-war caucus whoroutinely oppose war spending and would accept only legislation that would bringtroops home immediately.

Fearing that other liberals would join them and tip the scales, Pelosi had spentdays trying to convince members that the bill was Congress' best shot at forcinga new course in Iraq _ an argument that was aided when the Democrats added morethan $20 billion in domestic spending in an effort to lure votes.

Pelosi received a boost this week when several of the bill's most consistentcritics said they would not pressure members to vote against it, even thoughthey would oppose it themselves.

The vote was considered a personal victory for the new speaker, whose husbandwatched the debate Friday from the gallery overlooking the House floor.

Anti-war groups remained divided on whether passage of the bill was a goodthing, and protesters tried to disrupt debate Friday and pressure members tooppose the bill.

"This is just the beginning of the beginning of the end of this war," said Rep.Barbara Lee, D-Calif., among those who opposed the bill.

The emotional debate surrounding the bill echoed clashes between lawmakers andthe White House over the Vietnam War four decades ago.

"We're going to make a difference with this bill," bellowed Rep. John Murtha,D-Pa., a Vietnam War veteran who helped write the legislation.

"We're going to bring those troops home. We're going to start changing thedirection of this great nation," he said, bringing a standing ovation and hugsfrom his colleagues.

Republicans countered that the bill would be tantamount to conceding defeat.

"The stakes in Iraq are too high and the sacrifices made by our militarypersonnel and their families too great to be content with anything but success,"said Republican Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo.

About Me

Yes, there are two Americas’ Virginia, they exist as certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist. One tolerant and
free-thinking, the other intolerant and close-minded!
Sincerely, thinkingblue, from the TOLERANT AND FREE-THINKING USA
PS: Joe (You Lie) Wilson, Glenn Beck, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh et al reside in the intolerant America!